Of all the solutions for a warming world, “plant more trees” seems pretty obvious.
However, in New Zealand, which tested that premise by linking incentives for forestry development with its emissions trading scheme, the results have been more controversial and less effective than climate advocates hoped.
Now, after four years of frenetic planting, a prominent government watchdog has joined international agencies, industry groups and environmental advocates in calling for a radical overhaul, one that threatens a reversal of fortunes for investors in the recent forestry boom.
Illustration: Mountain People
“Pine production and permanent forestry are legitimate land uses,” New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton wrote in a report on land-use change, published on Wednesday last week in Wellington.
“But afforestation should not be incentivised by treating it as a cheap way to offset fossil fuel emissions,” Upton said.
It is an aggressive challenge to one of the world’s most prominent campaigns for afforestation.
Ingka Group, the largest global IKEA franchisee and a major investor in New Zealand forestry, said in an e-mail that Upton’s advice is “significant, and we are closely reviewing the potential impacts,” adding that its long-term commitments in the country are unchanged.
Other forestry investors say the ongoing debates are sapping confidence in the market.
“While uncertainty remains, New Zealand is missing a significant opportunity to grow its forest estate,” said Phil Taylor, managing director of New Zealand forestry at Port Blakely, which owns 35,000 hectares of mixed species plantations.
“It needs to be sorted out,” Taylor added.
Since 2019, the country has added about 175,000 hectares of forests, almost all the fast-growing, carbon-sucking Pinus radiata, helping New Zealand make progress toward its 2050 net zero goal.
However, the new growth has subsumed the nation’s farmland, undermining the meat-and-dairy industry, the beef-and-sheep lobby said.
Increased waste from forestry — the logs, leaves and branches known as “slash” — more than doubled the damage of the flooding caused by last year’s Cyclone Gabrielle.
While those might be worthwhile trade-offs for significant long-term reductions in climate-warming carbon dioxide, the system does not really achieve that either, experts say.
Forests do absorb a lot of carbon dioxide, but their efficiency wanes over time. To achieve the same environmental effect over decades, “you’re going to have to keep planting more and more forests,” said John Saunders, a senior researcher at Lincoln University’s agribusiness and economics research unit.
“That isn’t actually solving the problem,” Saunders added.
The seeds of New Zealand’s forestry boom were planted in 2019, when the country’s emissions trading scheme required companies to use only domestic measures to compensate for carbon dioxide. In practice, it prohibited firms from buying carbon offsets developed abroad to shrink their carbon footprint.
At the same time, the new rule amplified an existing, and unusual, feature of the policy. Companies doing business in New Zealand are allowed to offset 100 percent of their emissions with credits generated by domestic forest projects. Most countries limit the use of offsets to push more fundamental cuts to carbon dioxide emissions.
The combination made forestry more lucrative almost overnight — not only could trees be harvested for timber, they could also generate the carbon credits that are valuable to local firms. Investors, including Germany’s Munich Re and Japan’s Sumitomo Corp, bought land. Ingka Group has purchased 23 separate tracts for forestry, although it said that it does not generate or sell carbon credits.
The land grab created opportunities for New Zealand farmers as well, driving up the price of land. The 30-year net present value of land with production forestry and carbon credits is NZ$21,300 (US$13,074) per hectare, 144 percent more than the expected returns from sheep and beef, said Julian Ashby, chief insight officer at the industry group Beef + Lamb New Zealand.
“The enormous additional returns from carbon means that foresters have been able to offer significantly more for land,” Ashby said.
Since early 2021, the nation’s foreign investment regulator has approved about 150 applications to buy more than 102,000 hectares of land for forestry, roughly two-thirds of which used to be farmland. The farm lobby has long been a vocal critic of the aggressive afforestation policy, calling it a threat to the beef, dairy, wool and mutton that make up about 46 percent of the nation’s annual exports.
“The government wanted more trees. The price of land went up so much and farmers couldn’t compete,” said Murray Hellewell, who raises sheep and beef on a 640 hectare farm on the South Island.
One by one, his neighbors have sold to forestry companies, nearly surrounding Hellewell’s farm with pines.
Forest owners, for their part, said the farmers’ criticisms are short-sighted and that adverse policy changes could affect the NZ$5 billion in annual forestry exports, also a key contributor to the country’s GDP.
Investors need confidence in the emissions trading scheme, said Elizabeth Heeg, head of the New Zealand Forest Owners Association, adding that diminishing the role of forestry offsets would not be good for the country’s climate targets.
“It makes no sense for the report to suggest that reducing production forestry is a positive way forward,” she said in a statement.
The new government has said it is looking at revisions to the emissions trading scheme to restrict productive farmland being converted to forestry, although New Zealand Minister for Climate Change Simon Watts in an e-mail said that limiting forestry credits is not on the table.
“We do recognize the concerns over the scale and pace of rural land use change, and the need to balance productive land uses,” he said.
Upton’s report offered one solution that could meet the needs of at least some farmers and environmentalists alike. One problem with the current forestry credits is that they are used to offset carbon dioxide emissions, typically from fossil fuels, which linger in the atmosphere in perpetuity — which means the forest also has to live forever, against the odds of disease, fire, storm or human behavior.
However, biogenic methane, the greenhouse gas emitted by livestock, has a greater warming effect, but for a shorter period of time. Starting in 2030, farmers would have to pay for those emissions or find a way to offset them.
Forestry could be a solution, Upton said.
“For short-lived gases like methane, the goal is to reduce emissions to an acceptable flow rather than eliminate them altogether,” he wrote.
Using forests to offset methane emissions “is a more justifiable strategy than using it to offset fossil carbon dioxide,” he added.
Deterrence is fading; war is looming on the Taiwan Strait and for other targets of the China-enabled dictatorship alliance, and after three years the cure is just dawning on the Biden Administration. Now mind you, for a May 28, 2024 interview with Time magazine, President Joe Biden made his 5th public commitment that the United States would defend Taiwan. Less than three weeks later the United States Navy, along with ships from navies of Japan, Canada, the Netherlands, and France, were conducting the Valiant Shield joint force exercise in the Philippine Sea south of Taiwan and in the South China Sea to
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has once again resorted to its age-old tactic of blaming the US for China’s woes. The Financial Times on Sunday reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that China would not invade Taiwan because it was a trap set by the US. This is not just an attempt to deflect blame, but also a textbook example of the CCP’s “divide and conquer” strategy to sow discord between Europe and the US. However, the blame game reveals deeper problems. Xi’s power rests on the support of the Chinese People’s Liberation
The official media of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) reacted to the May 20 inauguration speech of President William Lai (賴清德) by asserting: “Lai’s words reveal his true intention of sacrificing peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait for his own desire for power.” This baseless accusation by Beijing that Lai is manipulating Taiwanese to resist unification with China for his personal gain, is part of a broader CCP information warfare campaign that has intensified since Lai’s election. This campaign, orchestrated by the United Front Work Department, the CCP’s agency for coordinating influence operations and propaganda, aims to demoralize Taiwanese,
During a meeting in April, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) told European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen that the US was trying to provoke China to invade Taiwan, the Financial Times reported on Sunday last week. War with the US would destroy many of China’s achievements and undermine his goal of achieving China’s “great rejuvenation,” Xi was quoted as saying. If Xi genuinely believes the US is goading China, it shows that “concerns that Xi has created an information vacuum” or is getting bad council are “worryingly, true,” Center for Strategic and International Studies Freeman chair in China Studies Jude Blanchette